Research needs appropriate and accurate data collection.
For the research team with data collectors, should they be invited to join the authorship?
"Data collectors" may not be among the authors. There can be a separate team for data and surveys. This issue should be stated in the planning of the study and in the ethical applications.
It is a matter of honesty. Data collectors are not authors if they didn't clearly take part in analysing this data and writing to together with existing known information to create conclusions. They could be acknowledged at the acknowledgement session of the paper or get involved more in the study to be an author.
Everyone contributes to the development in a different way! Once they've done the job - you have to.
For sure. It is very sad to have the hard work of collecting data and them appreciate the article without even a mention of your contribution.
If data collectors are an integral part of a collaborative research team, as is the case in much of medical research, they are frequently co-authors.
Try writing a paper that needs data without any data.
No data means no paper.
The research team should guide for accurate sampling . Considering the research interest there should not be any mandates.
In actual fact, anyone who contributes significantly in the paper (ie. data curation, statistical analysis, writing and review of the manuscript) has the right to be a co-author. Nonetheless, most data collectors, at least in most of our studies, are paid-trained personnel. Most often, very numerous depending on the locations included in the study and the sample size required. The lead researcher can definitely not include such huge number of authors in the paper. However, some prefer pay reduction for co-authorship. I think this is fair.
Collecting data to allow a paper to be written would be regarded by many as "significant".
Many of my co-authors collect data to be used in joint research, and I would never begrudge them co-authorship.
I am not talking about downloading data from the internet, which anyone can do..
I am talking about finding, saving, storing, processing, retrieving, disseminating, and presenting data, which is precisely what many data collectors do.
Their names to be mentioned in acknowledgement
But not as author until they have participated in write-up
To achieve the project goal, the data should be collected by or in front of the author(s) with their recomandations. Autmost care must be taken while collecting the data because all the results and analysis depend only on the collected data.
To anyone who is familiar with collaborative team research, such as in medical and health science, the senior academic who attracted the funding for the team is ALWAYS a co-author.
They do not have to write anything.
That is where the research team comes in.
Anyone who thinks that participating in writing is essential for joint authorship knows little or nothing about collaborative team research.
Ideas are frequently given in team discussions, and not necessarily in writing.
Without ideas, there is no paper.
Without funding, there is no paper.
Without data, there is no paper.
If you think otherwise, go ahead and try.
Good luck.
If data collectors are paid the appropriate market rate to collect data, they can be acknowledged as having provided the data but need not be co-authors.
If sensitive data are collected "in confidence", or the data collection occurs over an extended period of time (such as years), or is painstakingly difficult to locate, such data will not be made available to anyone without a formal offer of joint authorship on each and every paper that uses the data.
If data collecting is paid - then according the contract. If not paid - go ahead and ask for data. I just smile at such "requests"
It sometimes but not necessary for all time. You can take help from your students.
yes, data collectershould be in the author’s list and be notified in the contribution list
@Fayaz - not "and" - this is not possible, or you are co-author, or you are acknowledged in the end of paper. However - where is the point for the last case?
Dear Monika Tukacs :
I enjoyed reading your informative and detailed explanation of the roles of various contributors to collaborative research efforts.
thank you sir, thats what i mean. Data collector can be co-author and notified/acknowleged down in article
I believe that the answer depends on factors such as whether the data collectors are paid, the complexity of the data collection process, and the data collectors' overall contribution.
Data collection is also a essential criteria of the research as one of the key factor, with proper data and good knowledge with data input and data munching, a good research could be boosted. So it is to identified what has been the limit of the data collectors task and due acknowledgement need to be provided.
The 'Data Collectors' (paid or unpaid) deserve to be thanked and their help acknowledged in the 'Acknowledgements'. No less no more. There are many sleeping authors too whose names get included because of their influence, position, etc. Publishing Research papers of late has become a dirty game (scam) which a common man (Tax Payer) does not understand. The less said the better.
Why would an unpaid data collector be willing to provide data for a paper where they receive only an acknowledgement?
No thanks.
Data collectors are not sleeping because they are collecting data.
Is a historian a writer or a collector of the historical data?
By definition, an author writes or creates FROM the data.
A data collector amasses the data for the writer to extrapolate a narrative.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/author
Definition of author
1: the writer of a literary work (such as a book) a famous author
2a: one that originates or creates something
verb
transitive verb
: to be the author of : WRITE
https://www.rvc.ac.uk/research/about/research-data-management/during-a-project/roles-and-responsibilities
The UK Data Archive lists the people who:
- principal investigators designing research
- research staff or students collecting, creating, processing and analysing data
- external contractors with a role in data collection, collation or processing, e.g. transcribers
The "definition" of "author" is irrelevant for large collaborative team research, where some of the authors do the actual writing of grant applications and research papers, while other members of the team contribute funding, conduct experiments, prepare survey questionnaires, collect-save-store-protect-retrieve-present data, undertake a literature review, analyze the experimental results (aka "data"), evaluate any empirical data, prepare a draft of the paper, comment on-evaluate-improve the draft paper, and prepare a final version?
Apologies to collaborative team researchers if I have omitted anything.
Evidently, extrapolating from the humanities, where collaborative team research seems to be a rarity, does not work for the sciences, social sciences, or business.
Thank you Michael. If it is indeed a 'Stone soup' collaborative, so to speak, there should no need to distinguish between the flavor the salt lends as opposed to the nutrition the vegetables add.
To Diane:
It is my pleasure.
I have no dispute with your clear and helpful explanations, but have concerns about their relevance for disciplines outside the humanities.
I appreciated your soup analogy.
To Michael,
I took your point about the differences between disciplines so I began an information search this morning. I found a very well written and comprehensive article that speaks to the topic of this thread, "Authorship: An evolving concept".
https://www.editage.com/insights/authorship-an-evolving-concept
Thank you for the inspiration to dig deeper. I gained a new perspective.
Dear Diane and Michael John:
The informative interaction has been very useful in defining the roles of various contributors to the authorship of a collaborative team research paper.
In economics, there are several classic cases where one of the authors had collected data, such as on twins, over a number of years.
No other investigator seems to have had access to the data, one reason being that previous data had been superseded over time.
The data collector was eventually a co-author in a high profile paper in one of the best journals in economics after "contributing" the data.
To Diane:
Many thanks for the helpful reference.
We live and learn.
To Chia-Lin Chang:
Many thanks for the interesting and illuminating discussion relating to a very interesting and vexing Question posed by Mohamad-Hani Temsah.
Once, a reviewer suggested to include one of the very pertinent papers (not authored by the reviewer) which we were not aware of. Despite our best efforts, we could not get a copy of the suggested paper in our Institute library or elsewhere. It was during pre internet and Google era. Finally, we requested the Editor of the Journal for his help in getting a copy of the required paper. He arranged for a copy of the paper to be sent to us by Airmail post. We acknowledged the help of the Editor and the reviewer (anonymous ).
In my view, your acknowledgement was both polite and proper.
Whether that might qualify as "data collection" is a separate issue.
I would not include data collectors among the authors of a paper based on collected data. Rather, at the very outset of the paper, I would thank the data collectors along with those who provided helpful suggestions.
I would include data collectors among the authors of a paper based on collected data. Remember research is both qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative research are mainly lab based in most cases. Hence, owners of the lab are key members of the research and could be members of the research Team. However, where they are not, they need to be acknowledge.
If the data collectors are the researchers they can be authors but if their duty is just to get data they can not be authors.
Depends on the importance of the data to the project and completed paper.
Different disciplines have different approaches to the issue of authorship. Some disciplines, such as psychology and medicine (with which I am most familiar), have quite strict policies about authorship, for example that authors of a manuscript should be restricted to people who made a definite contribution to the actual writing (i.e., authorship in the "real" sense of the word) of that manuscript, should have approved the final manuscript, and should even will be willing to take responsibility for it. Other people, for example, those who participated in the research, collected data for it, or merely provided background supervision, should be acknowledged for their contribution(s). They are not to be regarded as authors.
Other disciplines have quite different practices, which can sometimes result in hyperauthorship.
I guess one of the main issues people need to consider is what is permissible, and typical, within their particular discipline.
The physical sciences is behind the rise of thousand-author hyper papers :
https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/paper-authorship-goes-hyper
Research papers with more than 3 authors:
Astronomy and Astrophysics : 59%
Cancer : 88%
Economics : 15%
Genetics and Heredity : 79%
Nuclear and Particle Physics : 37%
Philosophy : 0%
Research papers with more than 100 authors:
Astronomy and Astrophysics : 1%
Nuclear and Particle Physics : 3%
Research papers with more than 500 authors:
Nuclear and Particle Physics : 2%
Robert Trevethan@
I agree that people who give background information, suggestions, advice, or help in drafting of illustrations, may simply be acknowledged. However, it would be harsh to deny authorship to those who generated data which were used in writing of the paper, except if payment is made to them or who are gainfully engaged in the institute specifically for running the instruments.
M. Qasim Jan. Thanks for your comment. I can only respond by saying that I think the situation is complex. Although, because of my own academic background, I subscribe pretty strongly to the notion that the word "author" refers to people who were explicitly engaged in writing the article, not to people who collect data, etc., I am happy to allow that others have different perspectives.
In fact, I have permitted a different perspective in a publication that some colleagues and I have had published recently. I wrote all of the text (which involved multiple drafts requiring months of work), one of the other authors helped me conceive of the research, worked with me to prepare the surveys, and checked what I had written (and did so zealously, several times), and a third author spent probably no more than 20 minutes setting up a situation that allowed us to collect about half of the data online. Her contribution was no greater than that, but we could not have conducted the research without the data that her quick contribution made possible. So I was willing to include her among us other two authors despite her massively minimal input.
The journal that our article was published in does not have an explicit policy about who is entitled to be listed as authors, so it didn't trouble me to include the person who made a minimal contribution in terms of data collection.
Interestingly, we did not include, as authors, several people who had spent a lot more time assisting us in the translation and back translation of the surveys. So, where should the line be drawn?
I don't have an answer, but I find the issue a bit fascinating.
Today, this issue is often circumvented as follows. 1. Collections of materials with students are jointly published at conferences, after which they make references in serious articles. Good an approach. 2. Insolence. They write a review article, include all the work of colleagues, and then refer to their article.
When the labor costs of the expedition are equal, the joint publication is fair.
Bearing in mind that different disciplines have different procedures and cultures, anyone who has contributed significantly at any stage of the research, from conception of the idea to submission, R&R, and resubmission, can be considered as a co-author.
Where data collectors are recruited for that assignment with agreement for monetary reward, no need to be acknowledged as part of the authors except where the authors act as data collector individually. In that case, such contribution needs to be recognized as part of authorship.
Of course, every case is different, but hey, anyone there would like to work on me? Without coauthorship? Really? Come on...
As a zoologist studying small vertebrates, I often take part in publications on ecto- and endoparasites, plant biochemistry. And now I was included in the work at the conference on the chemical composition of water (the collection was carried out in two days, but from an area of 600 kilometers). The Principal Investigator include in a small publication free of charge. A specialist from the Zoological Institute has requested a collection of Lepidoptera for molecular genetics from our region through the website www.inaturalist.org. Collected, submitted, his decision to include me as an author in a journal included in the WoS (collected during the main project or field practice).This approach solves a number of problems: it is not difficult for me to collect, and the researchers can include in co-authors; co-publishing allows me to participate in a funded project; if there is no funding, then don't waste time waiting for it ... It's a matter of communication and trust.
it is not mandatory to add a collector in authorship but this is a common fact in research: a collector can contribute a lot in research so being of their right you need to include their name as an author in the paper.
acknowledgement does not do justice to the effort required in data collection. In a way, data collection requires fair amount of research and analysis of the context, demographics, etc. It is fair to include them as an author.
- Badges
- Science topic